Hi, I talked to the apt maintainer and other experienced DDs at DebConf and we don't think it will work without a transition package in bookworm. Jilian said that it would work with apt from experimental but that's not an option. Basically apt will sort keeping libatlas3-base installed over any other solution as long as there is no package with the same name in Trixie. You can try editing the Packages files in /var/lib/apt directly if you want to test other solutions.
Feel free to take it from here. Cheers Jochen Am 19. Juli 2025 18:47:17 MESZ schrieb "M. Zhou" <[email protected]>: >I disagree. You may have incorrectly understood the package >relationship here. > >The binary package liblapacke is not a transitional package. >The latest liblapacke cannot provide what the old libatlas3-base >package provides. Instead, libatlas3-base is always a candidate >that may serve as a dependency of liblapacke. After some >point, libatlas3-base get removed, and hence existing packages >depending on libatlas3-base has to be built against the other >blas/lapack impelementations. > >The original Breaks relationship is due to the underlying >update-alternatives mechanism. We are sure liblapacke does >not work with libatlas3-base as the actual implementation. > >The correct solution is to simply ask apt to get rid of >libatlas3-base. Please do not introduce a NEW binary package. >This is not transition. This is deprecation, which is >exactly Breaks+Repalces does. > >Let me handle this bug. I'm co-maintainer of src:lapack. > >On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 17:06 +0200, Jochen Sprickerhof wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I looked into it a bit more and got it working with a transitional dummy >> package as described here: >> >> https://wiki.debian.org/RenamingPackages >> >> I have added this to lapack: >> >> Package: libatlas3-base >> Depends: libblas3, ${misc:Depends} >> Architecture: all >> Priority: optional >> Section: oldlibs >> Description: transitional package >> This is a transitional package. It can safely be removed. >> >> As it is already late for trixie I uploaded it to NEW/experimental. The >> release team agreed to take it afterwards. I will take care of the rest >> unless someone disagrees with the approach. >> >> Cheers Jochen >> >> >> * Jochen Sprickerhof <[email protected]> [2025-07-18 10:26]: >> > Hi, >> > >> > * M. Zhou <[email protected]> [2025-07-17 22:35]: >> > > I'm still a little bit confused about the report. >> > > >> > > Based on the podman image debian:bookwork, I can upgrade psfex without >> > > apt >> > > reporting issue like reported. So the problem seems to be highly specific >> > > to the -14 revision of atlas. >> > >> > There is a reproducer in the initial bug report that is still valid >> > for me. >> > >> > > Do that mean making lapack break the -14 version is enough to fix this >> > > bug? >> > > ``` >> > > - libatlas3-base (<< 3.10.3-14) >> > > + libatlas3-base >> > > ``` >> > >> > From a quick look libatlas3-base in bookworm was split into multiple >> > packages and there is a Break: but no Replaces: see >> > >> > https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition >> > >> > I think #7 applies. >> > >> > Cheers Jochen >> >
